Paul Forseth

[Irving Whale, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

The Irving Whale salvage feasibility study submitted to the coast guard in 1992 noted the presence of a heating fluid called Mansanto MGS 295S. Had someone read the report carefully they would have discovered that the fluid was Monsanto MCS 295S, a substance comprised of 80 per cent PCBs.

When the minister asked the RCMP to investigate a possible cover-up of the knowledge of PCBs, did she ask it also to investigate her own department to find out who made the mistake? It was obvious that cover-up was on her mind.

[Auditor General Act, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the environment is an issue very dear to Canadians. We all want to do what we can to preserve this great country. Every day we ask ourselves: What can we do to make certain that the environment can be preserved and saved?

The member for Laurentides is a great believer in environmental issues yet I have to question her amendment to Bill C-83. The bill is not a solid, forthright piece of legislation. There is no doubt about that. However, removing the part in clause 5 dealing with sustainable development makes a weak bill all that much weaker. It removes benchmark measurements on reporting.

The Reform Party has been consistent in its position on Bill C-83. The bill would be much more effective if the role of the environmental commissioner were completely taken over by the auditor general. We know that the commissioner will be an employee of the Office of the Auditor General. The commissioner will have to pass everything by the auditor general before it can be released to Parliament and the public.

Bill C-83 makes the government look as if it is serious about cleaning up the environmental practices of federal departments. However, the real question is whether or not this commissioner is going to really make a difference. The role is a strange one. The commissioner would monitor and report annually to Parliament through the auditor general on the extent to which federal government departments had met sustainable development objectives and implemented the actions set out in their sustainable development strategies.

When the auditor general came before the environment committee, he stated quite clearly that there would not be a responsibility given to the commissioner that could not be performed by the auditor general himself. Therefore, Reform sees the role of the commissioner as outlined in this bill to simply be another level of bureaucracy, all of course at the expense of the taxpayers. It is a long envisaged proposal now coming in the form for the sake of appearances without any real substance.

Let us not forget the Minister of the Environment stated that one objective of the commissioner would be to look into waste reduction. Therefore, if the auditor general's office took over more responsibility in terms of environmental issues would this not be cost effective as well as a reduction of wastefulness?

The environment minister has truly convinced herself that Bill C-83 will be a solution to some of Canada's environmental chaos. The minister believes that when the commissioner reports to Parliament, federal departments are going to listen and then act. However, if they do not act now to the regular auditor general's reports, why would they act on a commissioner's report on environmental issues?

Let me illustrate the point. The report from the auditor general in May 1995 looked at Environment Canada and the management of hazardous wastes. The auditor general reported that there was a lack of effort on Environment Canada's part to control the storage and destruction of PCB wastes. The control of PCBs is under the regulation of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in order to minimize risk to human health and the environment.

The auditor general stated: "On March 31, 1995, Environment Canada terminated its leadership role in the management of PCB destruction without devising a plan to guide federal departments to further consolidate PCB wastes, reduce their volume and develop action plans for their destruction. This could seriously impede the

government's ability to ensure safe and cost effective storage and timely destruction of federal PCB wastes".

The control of PCB wastes is crucial for true sustainable development. Unfortunately, the environment minister has not followed through with the auditor general's recommendations. Therefore, my question is: When and if the environmental commissioner is put into place, what will he or she say that will be any more convincing than what has already been said by the auditor general himself? The answer is nothing. The section of the bill adjusted by the Bloc amendment before us makes the bill ever more unfocused and vague and does not enhance any function at all.

Canadians will soon realize that the commissioner is just a smoke screen created by the environment minister to make it appear that she is working to clean up the environment. She has done little throughout her tenure as minister that accomplishes an improvement to our environment. Her talk is shrill and her actions are sometimes expensive; the end result being an increased deficit with little to no environmental improvements.

My friend from the Bloc Quebecois has an amendment at this stage that deletes what I believe to be the only clear specification in this legislation. While I do not agree that we should have a separate commissioner under the auspices of the auditor general, I do believe that if there has to be one it is essential that the person provide the best report possible on all sustainable development strategies to all category one departments.

In this time of budget restraint and fiscal responsibility, I am bothered that the minister has chosen to spend the taxpayers' hard earned money with such a redundant position merely to add prestige and political significance to environmental issues. Such redundant spending is common among most Liberal ministers. It will only be a matter of time before Canadians come to the realization that to achieve a new and more environmentally sustainable Canada a different party must come to government.

In closing, I cannot support the Bloc amendment. Bloc members continue to whine about preserving provincial jurisdiction while at the same time the Quebec provincial government creates overlap after overlap. The fiscal consequences for the poor people of Quebec due to the separatists' colorations and manipulations of public policy are very serious. The amendment adds nothing positive or helpful to a poor bill and therefore I cannot support it.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, before we left for the Senate I was quoting the member for York-Simcoe. She had said:

I think in terms of what's going on in the United States. The decision that was encountered recently regarding MMT was based on some technicality. We also have to give consideration to the fact that MMT is banned in California and some of the high-ozone states- So any kind of justification for the fact that 100 per cent of the United States is not going to be using MMT is simply just not acceptable because that's not true. At least 30 per cent of the country will not be having MMT usage at all.

When I was a youngster in elementary school and I thought I might be embarrassed, I would perhaps disassemble to get out of

trouble. The comments made by the member for York-Simcoe in the environment committee show that the government's back is up against the wall and it is now saying anything it can to save face. The policy of the government is clear: legislate how the minister feels, or wants to favour someone, rather than by what is right in view of legitimate evidence.

When MMT is reintroduced into the United States later this year probably 70 per cent of the gasoline will have MMT in it, if we use the numbers from the member for York-Simcoe. Let me also point out that the environmental restrictions in California are different from any of those used in other states. I have often heard the description that California is a country all of its own. If California lifted the ban on MMT I am certain the members of the Liberal caucus would find some other reason it is important to ban MMT.

When the EPA attempted to ban MMT it mistakenly believed it was harmful. The Liberal government wants to ban not the substance but rather the importation and interprovincial trade in the substance. This is clearly an anti-free trade bill. Some would ask the reason for doing it this way. The government has no other choice. When it is unable to do something through the proper channels, old style Liberals find other ways.

This is the government that told the Canadian electorate following the last election that it would show credibility and responsibility and be forthright with the public. Here is another example that can be added to a long list of old style governance and politics.

Every Canadian should ask the Minister of the Environment why she did not go through the proper channels and ban MMT under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. She is the sponsor of this legislation so why did she not use her department's act, an act that was designed specifically for banning harmful substances. The answer is simple. She could not. There is not a scientific basis for it. MMT appears to be no more harmful than household dust on the furniture.

In order to add a substance to the schedule of banned substances under CEPA it must be proven by Health Canada that the substance is hazardous to the health of Canadians. Anyone who has listened to any of the debates on this bill is well aware of the December 6, 1994 Health Canada report called "Risk Assessment for the Combustion Products of MMT". It states that "all analyses indicate that the combustion products of MMT in gasoline do not represent an added health risk to the Canadian population".

On October 18 a Health Canada official appeared before the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development and concurred that the 1994 report remains the position of the department. Therefore I urge all members of the House not to include in their speeches during this third reading stage any reference that the removal of MMT will improve health quality. I

heard several government members make a mention of this during second reading. It is a false and inaccurate assertion. A member may make an unforeseen mistake, however in this case, the evidence gives clear direction concerning what can be claimed.

From the outset Reformers have unequivocally stated that we would support the banning of MMT if the government could prove through an independent scientific test that MMT was harmful to the automakers onboard diagnostic systems or OBD-IIs as they are called in the industry. However the minister has only scoffed at Reform for even suggesting independent testing. The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association has provided her with their test data and that is all the data she apparently needs or wants to see.

When the petroleum companies appeared before the committee they suggested they would have a tremendous amount to lose should MMT be removed from Canadian fuels. In their testimony it was suggested that the removal of MMT could result in an increase of manufacturing costs by as much as $69 million per year.

According to the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, the $69 million increase would be due to the fact that refiners would have to burn more crude in order to achieve the high octane levels needed for today's automobiles. They would also have to retrofit refineries. Other expensive additives would have to be used which might eventually be revealed to be very harmful.

This bill has been through the various stages. I want to make it clear that at every stage Reform has made every attempt to put the bill on hold until conclusive proof is found. We have not been obstructionist. We have called for common sense, not unreasonably siding with any group, unlike the government.

I want to read into the record parts of three letters I have come across, all from provincial ministers of the environment and all concerning MMT. First, from the Hon. Vaughn Blaney, Minister of the Environment for the province of New Brunswick:

Given that neither the federal government nor the motor vehicle manufacturing industry have provided the information and assurances that this province and the refining industry have requested regarding the economic and environmental impacts of this bill, and given the current discussions on use of this compound in the United States, I would hereby request that this bill be set aside until the questions raised have been clearly responded to by Canada and a decision on the continued use of this additive is taken in the United States.

From the Hon. Wayne Adams, Minister of the Environment for the province of Nova Scotia:

I realize that there are conflicting reports respecting pros and cons of MMT use. However, the task force should consider the potential increase in NOx emissions, higher production costs, and higher energy demands associated with the manufacture and use of a non-MMT gasoline. I believe that it would be prudent to withhold a final decision with respect to fuel reformulation and MMT until such

time as all stakeholders have had sufficient opportunity to assess the available information and the question of MMT is settled in the U.S.

From the Hon. Bernard H. Wiens, Minister of the Environment and Resource Management for the province of Saskatchewan:

The province understands the importance of the automobile manufacturing industry in Canada, however, our petroleum refining industry continues to be concerned that the removal of MMT would cause substantial cost increases for their industry. In addition to the cost implications, increased greenhouse gas emissions as a result of intensified refinery processes required to replace MMT, and increased vehicle tail-pipe emissions of smog forming Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) would also occur. The data supplied to date by the automative industry does not identify a net air quality benefit and as such, we have difficulty rationalizing the cost to the refining industry or consumers.

The issue of NOx benefit is a serious one. NOx emissions are major contributors to urban smog. As well, there is no disputing that the presence of MMT in unleaded gasoline actually reduces smog as it complements complete combustion. All of the experts agree, including those from Environment Canada. The only dispute is about the appropriate amount.

Environment Canada officials claim that the amount is 5 per cent whereas Ethyl and the petroleum companies claim it is closer to 20 per cent. Whatever the number, the result is that MMT reduces NOx emissions, it certainly does not increase it.

One of the most interesting aspects of this entire debate is the absence of the Minister of Natural Resources. Within the minister's purview are the many refineries and coming from the capital of the oil industry one has to wonder what her opinions are. When asked whether or not the natural resources minister is in agreement with Bill C-94 the environment minister stood up and stated: "I would point out that any cabinet decision to move on MMT is supported by all minister of government".

However, in the final outcome, the Minister of Natural Resources will have to explain her actions to her constituents. I doubt the scientists and technicians of her department support the bill. They have been muzzled and disallowed from expressing their own personal and professional views.

Can the Minister of Natural Resources really stand in the House and vote for such changes as proposed in Bill C-94? May I remind her that she won by one of the smallest margins in the last federal election. If I remember correctly there were several recounts. I suggest the minister make her voice known around the cabinet table instead of succumbing to the unreasonable pressure of the Minister of the Environment.

Since the very beginning Reform has pushed the environment minister to do independent testing and let the auto manufacturers and Ethyl Corporation work things out themselves. The minister could not believe that I would suggest such a thing. She was adamant that the auto manufacturers were correct and that was that.

I have some new information about a recent development. I hope each of my hon. friends across the floor, including the Minister of the Environment, will be listening very closely. The American Automobile Manufacturers Association and its members are continuing to develop an MMT vehicle test program. They expect to co-operate with the makers of MMT. The industry is talking about the pursuing a sharing of data about the effects of MMT on OBD systems. It looks like the industry can solve the problem itself without government interference.

It is time for the environment minister to change her headstrong approach. When industries are willing to work together to find common ground, the government should stay clear. If the Minister of the Environment is too willing to interfere, I can only ask the question, why? If the minister wants to have a credible legacy in the environment portfolio I would suggest that she put aside this bill and let it gather some household dust.

The government's lack of a meaningful legislative agenda for the country is now noticed by the political observers. The country is falling apart on the tenets of the fundamental agreements that made the Confederation of Canada, yet we are dithering over MMT in car gas. The sense of proportion for government is missing at this critical point in our history.

If we must regulate gasoline additives for the country, then let the minister come forward with a bill that deals with rules and an open process for any substance that does not come under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This anti-free trade bill before us today will likely be challenged on the reasonable basis under the NAFTA provisions. I think the intervenor should win on the merits against the government as everything our party has said on this matter would support such a challenge. It is my assessment that the government is in a very weak, unjustifiable position on that count but is hoping that it will slip by.

In closing, Reformers say to the Minister of the Environment who is the Deputy Prime Minister, give up on this misguided track and get on with saving the country.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today to third reading of Bill C-94. I am pleased to speak for two reasons. First, it will give me the opportunity to show Canadians a sad example of bad legislation. Second, speaking today allows me to reveal again how the government's inability to display good judgment will cause Canadian industry, the consumer, and the overall environment to suffer.

On May 19, 1995 Bill C-94 was introduced in the House of Commons by the Minister of the Environment. After introduction the minister proceeded to hold a press conference, where she informed reporters that the reason for banning MMT was because it caused problems with onboard diagnostic systems in new automobiles. That was not the only reason the minister proceeded to ban MMT. She stated that Canada was one of the few countries in the world using MMT in unleaded gasoline and that this should change.

The minister knows very well what the best solution to the entire debate would be. She knows that a series of independent third party tests are needed, but she will not initiate this or facilitate it.

As members of the House and, more important, as representatives of all Canadians it is important we weigh and pursue every available option to come up with an appropriate conclusion before we create legislation. We should be asking ourselves: What indeed is the best science can tell us?

The Liberal government calls itself responsible. What is really meant by the term responsibility, in view of Bill C-94? On these technical matters it certainly does not hurt to demonstrate and then legislate. That is not too much to ask.

We know that at the time the bill was introduced MMT was not yet approved for use in unleaded gasoline in the United States. Since 1978 MMT has not been in U.S. fuel. In 1978 the Environmental Protection Agency did not approve MMT because it felt it might be detrimental to the health of Americans. Understanding what the Americans did with respect to MMT is very significant to what this government is trying to do with Bill C-94.

In the U.S. there was an air quality act brought forward by Congress in 1967. The act established a registration program for fuel additives. The regulations made registration a condition of sale and required that manufacturers provide information on the recommended range of concentration and use and chemical composition and structure.

In 1970 Congress amended the act to transfer authorization of the registration program over to the EPA. Congress required that the EPA designate fuels and fuel additives for registration. The clean air act required that manufacturers provide information on the chemical composition to the EPA. The EPA also had the authority to judge the effects of additives on emission control performance and public health.

In 1977 Congress made more amendments to the clean air act. One amendment dealt with the emergence of catalytic converters in automobiles. I will read what the courts had to say about the new amendment and the effect it would have on MMT:

As catalytic converters could not be used with leaded fuel, their adoption had led to a sharp rise in the use of MMT as an octane booster, and Congress responded to concerns that it and other fuel additives might harm the effectiveness of these converters. Section 211(f)(3) required that manufacturers of certain existing additives, those that were "not substantially similar" to constituents of fuel used in the certification of vehicles for emission purposes for 1975 or later model years, stop distributing such additives effective September 15, 1978.

Congress directed the EPA to grant a waiver once it determined that the additive would not cause or contribute to the failure of an emission control device system. The EPA deliberately stalled on making a decision until the courts instructed it to do the testing.

On November 30, 1993 the EPA found that MMT did not cause or contribute to the failure of emission control systems. However, not wanting to be outdone by the courts, the EPA denied the waiver on the grounds that the manufacturer, Ethyl, had not yet established the absence of health effects.

The court wrangling continued until October 20, 1995 when the United States Court of Appeals, in the case of Ethyl Corporation v. Carol M. Browner, administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, ruled:

We order the EPA to register MMT for use as an additive in unleaded gasoline, as of November 30, 1993.

What is significant with this ruling is not that Ethyl won and that MMT could be sold in U.S. unleaded gasoline by the end of the year, but rather it is the process that was undertaken by Congress and then the EPA not to approve MMT in unleaded fuels. Back in 1978 the EPA said that MMT might pose a health problem and cause adverse effects to catalytic converters, but through the examination of all evidence by the courts these negative concerns were put aside.

The EPA has until December 4, 1995 to appeal the decision made by the court. Considering that it did not appeal an earlier decision this year it is doubtful it will appeal the October 20 ruling. The implications of this are rather ironic. When the bill was introduced in May both the environment minister and the industry minister said that eliminating MMT from our gasoline was essential to achieve a North American harmonization of fuel. They said we should copy the Americans.

Both ministers were confident that the ban on MMT would remain in the United States. On May 5 I asked the environment

minister during question period about the fact that the courts would probably rule in Ethyl's favour. In response he stated:

I advise the hon. member that last week when I had the opportunity of speaking with Carol Browner, head of the EPA, she reaffirmed the U.S. commitment not to allow MMT. She decried the fact that there is only one country, Canada, that still allows MMT. We intend to change that.

The Minister of Industry has gone further than his colleague, the Minister of the Environment. On April 25 in a question period response he told me:

Key to that is uniformity of standards between the U.S. and Canada. The member will know that MMT is not permitted in the United States by legislation. It is crucial that we have uniformity of standards. The effort we put into trying to ensure there was a voluntary agreement between the two sectors has been well placed, but finally governments have to decide.

The Ministry of Industry has clearly stated on the record that it is important U.S. and Canadian gasoline need to have the same composition harmonization. That is his position and he will no doubt vote in favour of Bill C-94. The government is confused. I thought the definition of harmonization was two sides being in harmony with each other. I guess the minister has a different definition as MMT is now going to be used in the U.S.A.

The industry minister is not the only one who has different ideas of harmonization. During the clause by clause consideration of the bill I moved the motion that we hold off on the bill until December 5, 1995, one day after the EPA's 45 allotted days to appeal the court ruling. The U.S. ruling was not only significant for Ethyl Corporation but was equally important for the Canadian consumer. I point out a statement by the member for York-Simcoe in rebuttal to my motion:

I think in terms of what's going on in the United States. The decision that was encountered recently regarding MMT was based on some technicality. We also have to give consideration to the fact that MMT is banned in California and some of the high ozone states.

[Criminal Code, November 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a few extemporaneous, spur of the moment observations to make.

Perhaps I can provide some perspective on the bill, seeing that my previous profession was that of probation officer and I was in a situation where administratively I dealt with the relationship with the 24-hour contact agency, which is the police, and saw the behaviour of probationers. Often on a Friday or Saturday night things were happening in the community, but the probation officer generally worked in an office in a day situation.

Certainly the well meaning intention of this private member's bill comes from legitimate police concern. It also can be seen that it comes from public concern. I am adding that it also comes from criminal justice probation officer concern.

The bill gives some reasonable discretion for giving additional tools to the police. That is not to say, as the member for Lanark-Carleton would say, that this is unjustifiable in the panoply of what is available to police officers. However, we must look at what are the administrative instructions to police specifically concerning their justice time and the allocation of dollars. They are under administrative control to be very careful not to arrest on a summary conviction unless they are absolutely pushed over the limit and it can be justified.

The operational difference between what happens on the street and the permutations that may be technically possible under the Criminal Code are quite different.

I am saying that the bill is going in the right direction because it conforms to the principle of minimal intervention and intrusion to achieve a public good. Rather than trying to change the offence from summary to an indictable offence, it looks at a specific exception to the law, which is a minimal change. It is the minimum possible to achieve the objective. It provides an exception to the summary procedure in a special case where the police officer decides for the general social good that it needs to be done. Currently, because of administrative procedures those are simply avoided and discounted by saying we really cannot intervene. Why should we do this?

The administration of justice has been brought into disrepute by the current operation in the streets. Probation orders are often seen to be not worth the paper they were written on. Orders are given and they must be obeyed. They will be obeyed increasingly if there are regular consequences that flow. We are talking about general deterrence and the community reputation that develops around the operation of these court orders, especially conditions of probation such as not to enter premises where alcohol is sold or not to be out after a certain hour, not to frequent a particular bus exchange where it seems that criminals have a tendency to meet, geographic prohibitions or prohibitions to stay at least one block away from a girlfriend's residence because of a history of assault or threats. The community expectation is that these orders will be obeyed and can reasonably be administered without unnecessary administrative barriers. We see in the newspaper that the offender received a sentence and was placed on certain conditions, and the public can feel good about it. However, when we investigate it, we find the administration of the order actually breaks down.

The probation order must have some real meaning. The public delegates to the authority and then has an expectation that the order will be administered properly. The orderly operation and administration of court orders are very important. I think the public reputation is that court orders are not that well administered.

We have to overcome the community notion that the order is not worth the paper it is written on. There are administrative barriers that could be put aside by this measure. The bill is minor in size but I am saying it is very meaningful in its practical form.

The member for Lanark-Carleton outlined in some technical sense how this bill went beyond the current bill before Parliament. I am recommending it is an additional permutation that would be very helpful for the administration of criminal justice in the community.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words to the amendment put forward by the member for Huron-Bruce.

The member had the opportunity to sit through the committee stage of this bill and hear the various witnesses who came forward. Had the member actually been listening to what the majority of witnesses were saying during the committee, he would not have been bringing forward amendments at report stage. He perhaps would have been speaking to the minister directly and encouraging the minister to scrap the bill.

Apparently the member was not at every committee meeting and as a result has brought forward two amendments, both technical in nature. I am sure that in his mind they strengthen the scope of the bill. I ask whether Bill C-94 will be strengthened or improved by these so-called technical amendments. The member knows very well that really the only way to help this area of concern is to scrap the bill, rather than to amend it.

The first amendment makes a change to clause 9. In the clause there is a reference to the record of a controlled substance. In the interpretation section of the bill, controlled substance means a manganese-based substance that is mentioned in the schedule and includes any other substance that contains such a manganese-based substance.

We are made to believe with this bill and with the member's amendments that MMT is hazardous. The government members across the floor know full well that this is not so. When they have the opportunity to vote for this bill at final reading stage, they will not only be voting in favour of bad legislation, they will be saying to the Canadian people that the government can ban a substance even if there is no evidence that the substance is hazardous.

I will close by saying that I could speak for a long time on the disappointing aspects of the bill, but I know that should be kept for third reading and will do so.

The amendments proposed by the member for Huron-Bruce cannot be supported by the Reform Party. While they may change what can or cannot be done with a manganese based substance and when a report should be submitted to the minister, they do not address the fundamental question. Before a substance can be banned, should it not go through a process of independent scientific review?

The bill cannot be improved by one or two amendments. The bill needs to be reworked from scratch if it is to have any credibility in both the industrial sector as well as the environmental sector. Good legislation would propose a predictable process for any substance, not just MMT.

The minister failed and the bill will ultimately be her legacy of another administrative blunder.

[Environment, October 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is on the environment. On Friday we were assured in the House that the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment draft environmental framework would be released for public discussion.

Can the government inform us of this discussion schedule and the implementation time frame that will make this agreement a reality instead of another paper proposal?

[The Environment, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, clearly there is a need for a new confederation, a balanced federation of provinces in Canada that the Minister of Environment should no longer resist.

The process of environmental harmonization has been going on for two years. Can the minister tell the House what the spectrum of changes the government is prepared to make to produce a genuine harmonious front to protect the environment?

[The Environment, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

On Monday and Tuesday the minister met with provincial counterparts in Whitehorse. The Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment has created a framework agreement to harmonize the provinces' respective roles. Canadians have a deep desire to see real co-operation.

Following the Whitehorse discussions, can the government tell the House what we can expect to see in respect of the environmental harmonization process being put into place with the provinces?

[Gasoline Additives, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Reform has long pushed this government to conduct independent scientific tests on MMT, yet our view is scoffed at. Legislation to ban is now known not to have been based on good science at all. Obviously, the decision was politically partisan rather than to help the environment.

Will the Minister of Industry admit that Reform was right all along? Will he admit that there should have been independent tests before trying to ban it, a ban that now appears to be completely useless in view of the minister's harmonization goals?